Outcome measures for the evaluation of treatment response in hidradenitis suppurativa for clinical practice

Importance Although several clinician- and patient-reported outcome measures have been developed for trials in hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), there is currently no consensus on which measures are best suited for use in clinical practice. Identifying validated and feasible measures applicable to the practice setting has the potential to optimize treatment strategies and generate generalizable evidence that may inform treatment guidelines. Objective To establish consensus on a core set of clinician- and patient-reported outcome measures recommended for use in clinical practice and to establish the appropriate interval within which these measures should be applied. Evidence Review Clinician- and patient-reported HS measures and studies describing their psychometric properties were identified through literature reviews. Identified measures comprised an item reduction survey and subsequent electronic Delphi (e-Delphi) consensus rounds. In each consensus round, a summary of outcome measure components and scoring methods was provided to participants. Experts were provided with feasibility characteristics of clinician measures to aid selection. Consensus was achieved if at least 67% of respondents agreed with use of a measure in clinical practice. Findings Among HS experts, response rates for item reduction, e-Delphi round 1, and e-Delphi round 2 surveys were 76.4% (42 of 55), 90.5% (38 of 42), and 92.9% (39 of 42), respectively; among patient research partners (PRPs), response rates were 70.8% (17 of 24), 100% (17 of 17), and 82.4% (14 of 17), respectively. The majority of experts across rounds were practicing dermatologists with 18 to 19 years of clinical experience. In the final e-Delphi round, most PRPs were female (12 [85.7%] vs 2 males [11.8%]) and aged 30 to 49 years. In the final e-Delphi round, HS experts and PRPs agreed with the use of the HS Investigator Global Assessment (28 [71.8%]) and HS Quality of Life score (13 [92.9%]), respectively. The most expert-preferred assessment interval in which to apply these measures was 3 months (27 [69.2%]). Conclusions and Relevance An international group of HS experts and PRPs achieved consensus on a core set of HS measures suitable for use in clinical practice. Consistent use of these measures may lead to more accurate assessments of HS disease activity and life outcomes, facilitating shared treatment decision-making in the practice setting

Addict Behav

BACKGROUND: Parachuting, also called bombing, is a way to ingest psychoactive substances wrapped into cigarette paper, toilet paper, etc. There is little data describing parachuting in terms of substances use, context of use and, most importantly, the motivations for using such wrappers, although some authors hypothesized that parachute could be used for pharmacokinetic reason. However, inconsistently, some authors report that parachutes are used for sustained-release whereas others report that users are looking for an immediate effect. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Considering parachute as a "home-made" dosage form, we have applied the dissolution testing to characterize the dissolution performance of a substance wrapped into a parachute and to characterize whether a parachute represents an immediate-release form or not. RESULTS: This in-vitro study provides the first pharmacokinetic data for drugs wrapped in parachutes. It shows that parachute acts as sustained-release form when made with a cigarette paper wrapper, but as immediate release form in the presence of alcohol or if wrapped with toilet paper. CONCLUSIONS: An important message to harm reduction is that users must be aware that a parachute can have unexpected pharmacokinetics and have to avoid taking another parachute in the absence of an immediate-effect to avoid overdose

Outcome Measures for the Evaluation of Treatment Response in Hidradenitis Suppurativa for Clinical Practice:A HiSTORIC Consensus Statement

Importance: Although several clinician- and patient-reported outcome measures have been developed for trials in hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), there is currently no consensus on which measures are best suited for use in clinical practice. Identifying validated and feasible measures applicable to the practice setting has the potential to optimize treatment strategies and generate generalizable evidence that may inform treatment guidelines.Objective: To establish consensus on a core set of clinician- and patient-reported outcome measures recommended for use in clinical practice and to establish the appropriate interval within which these measures should be applied.Evidence Review: Clinician- and patient-reported HS measures and studies describing their psychometric properties were identified through literature reviews. Identified measures comprised an item reduction survey and subsequent electronic Delphi (e-Delphi) consensus rounds. In each consensus round, a summary of outcome measure components and scoring methods was provided to participants. Experts were provided with feasibility characteristics of clinician measures to aid selection. Consensus was achieved if at least 67% of respondents agreed with use of a measure in clinical practice.Findings: Among HS experts, response rates for item reduction, e-Delphi round 1, and e-Delphi round 2 surveys were 76.4% (42 of 55), 90.5% (38 of 42), and 92.9% (39 of 42), respectively; among patient research partners (PRPs), response rates were 70.8% (17 of 24), 100% (17 of 17), and 82.4% (14 of 17), respectively. The majority of experts across rounds were practicing dermatologists with 18 to 19 years of clinical experience. In the final e-Delphi round, most PRPs were female (12 [85.7%] vs 2 males [11.8%]) and aged 30 to 49 years. In the final e-Delphi round, HS experts and PRPs agreed with the use of the HS Investigator Global Assessment (28 [71.8%]) and HS Quality of Life score (13 [92.9%]), respectively. The most expert-preferred assessment interval in which to apply these measures was 3 months (27 [69.2%]).Conclusions and Relevance: An international group of HS experts and PRPs achieved consensus on a core set of HS measures suitable for use in clinical practice. Consistent use of these measures may lead to more accurate assessments of HS disease activity and life outcomes, facilitating shared treatment decision-making in the practice setting..</p